Tredrea v KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd

The case involved a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Tredrea, and the defendant, KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd. The plaintiff, who was seeking damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and negligence, was engaged in a representative proceeding on behalf of a class of clients who had been provided with financial advice. The nature of the dispute was the admissibility of an alternate expert's evidence that was served outside the stipulated time. The court that heard the case was the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to rely on the evidence of an alternate expert, who was served out of time, and if the original expert was likely to cooperate or fail to comply with their duty to the court. The court also needed to consider the potential prejudice to the defendant caused by the late service of the expert's evidence. This involved weighing the importance of the expert's evidence against the potential prejudice to the defendant, who had already prepared their case based on the original expert's evidence.

The court found that the plaintiff's original expert was unlikely to cooperate or comply with their duty to the court, and therefore, the alternate expert's evidence should be admitted. The court considered the importance of the expert evidence in determining the merits of the case, and concluded that the potential prejudice to the defendant was outweighed by the need for a fair and just resolution of the case. The court also noted that the delay in serving the alternate expert's evidence was not due to any fault of the plaintiff, and that the defendant had sufficient time to prepare their case.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff was granted leave to rely on the alternate expert's evidence, and the case proceeded to trial on the merits. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the potential prejudice to the defendant when determining whether to admit late-served expert evidence in representative proceedings. It also emphasises the need for parties to ensure that their experts are willing and able to cooperate with the court and comply with their duties.